AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) – Mr Fletcher : “We’re advising doctors and all registered health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in their practice.”
AHPRA – 9th March 2021 Position Statement “While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination.”
So what happens when the best available evidence doesn’t agree with government procedures and guidelines?
It’s about time the government started listening to doctors and nurses on the frontline, not the rent seekers in the back room.
Whistleblowers should be praised for the courage not suspended by bureaucrats who have never worked in a ward.
Senator RENNICK: My question is to Mr Fletcher. With regard to your prior statement on 9 March 2021, when you advised health practitioners to follow the government advice, I want to run some of the government advice by you. In August 2021, Dr Skerritt, head of the TGA, came out and said:
Moderna is even after six months, it’s proving to be 93 per cent efficacious against any infection, 98 per cent against severe disease and 100 per cent against death.
It didn’t stop infection at all, and we’ve had a reported death by Moderna, as recognised by the TGA. I should note as well that the general health advice was always that the vaccines were safe and effective and that there was no missing information, such as about use in immunocompromised patients, frail patients with comorbidities or patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. Interaction with other vaccines and long-term safety data was never mentioned as being untested. So this was missing information in the Australian public assessment that came out in January 2021. That was Pfiser, by the way. Do you regret saying that doctors should follow the public health advice when it was clearly misleading?
Mr Fletcher : The statement that you are referring to from March 2021, which reflects obligations on registered health practitioners that have been in place way before COVID, indicates that those health practitioners must use their professional judgement and the best available evidence. In terms of the reference points for the evidence, if we were to get a concern expressed to us, we would certainly look to bodies such as ATAGI, the TGA and the public health authorities in the states, territories and the Commonwealth for that advice.
Senator RENNICK: That’s the problem. The advice never actually gave a list of all the stuff that wasn’t tested. They noted as a potential risk vaccine associated enhanced disease. That obviously comes because the more shots you get, the greater chance of having your immune system weakened. Now that we’re up to the fifth dose, are you advising doctors to warn patients of the risks of vaccines associated with enhanced disease, given that even it was recognised as a potential risk as far back as January 2021?
Mr Fletcher : We’re advising doctors and all registered health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in their practice.
Senator RENNICK: Given that is a noted potential risk, given that you put out a statement when the vaccine was originally rolled out, are you going to put out another statement advising doctors of the risk of immune imprinting?
Mr Fletcher : We have no plans to put out any further statements.
Senator RENNICK: So you are not going to help raise awareness of this potential risk from multiple vaccine shots?
Mr Fletcher : At this stage, as I say, we have no plans to put out any further statements. The statement we put out in March 2021 was in response to requests we were getting from health practitioners for clarification about how their existing obligations under code of conducts applied.
Senator RENNICK: In other professions, you have to outline the risks of any product. Don’t you think that the sensible thing to do would to be outline the risks from this particular product, as noted?
Prof. Murphy : That’s not a role for AHPRA. It’s a role—
Senator RENNICK: I’m not speaking to you.
CHAIR: Senator Rennick, can you let Professor Murphy reply.
Prof. Murphy : AHPRA is not a source of public health advice. What Mr Fletcher is saying is that AHPRA requires practitioners to use the best available advice at that time. That will change.
Senator RENNICK: That’s my point. The best available advice at the time was clearly misleading. It didn’t provide 100 per cent protection against death. I will get to you later, Professor Murphy. You’ll have your time. We’ll leave that. The last question I have for you is: are doctors being told to advise patients on how to lodge an adverse event claim if they have an injury from the vaccine? I’ve spoken to many constituents when they come to me and say they’ve been injured by the vaccine. Have you lodged an adverse event report with the TGA? Many people haven’t even heard of the TGA. They’ve never heard of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Are doctors making patients aware of what to do if they become injured by the vaccine?
Mr Fletcher : We would always expect that health practitioners meet their reporting obligations appropriately and, if appropriate, advise patients of that as well.
